HSTs - Are they sufficently crashworthy now, should they be withdrawn?

[Journeyman]

Edit: Posts #1 - #25 originally in this thread.

Interesting piece on HST safety in the news today.

Rail engineer calls for ScotRail fleet involved in Stonehaven crash to be scrapped

A rail engineer has called for the type of train involved in the tragic Stonehaven derailment to be scrapped amid safety concerns. Gareth Dennis has said

www.google.com

Press and Journal
HOME/NEWS/ABERDEENSHIRE/

Rail engineer calls for ScotRail fleet involved in Stonehaven crash to be scrapped​

Chris MacLennan
8 hours ago

A rail engineer has called for the type of train involved in the tragic Stonehaven derailment to be scrapped amid safety concerns.
Gareth Dennis has said the high speed trains, known as HSTs, are based on an outdated 50-year-old design that should no longer be used as they offer a lack of protection compared to modern designs.
Mr Dennis, speaking to The Scotsman, said other companies such as LNER have already scrapped use of the HSTs, however, ScotRail, currently being operated by Abellio, has not and has instead acquired and refurbished the trains for use on inter-city services.
One of the trains tragically derailed in August near Stonehaven after colliding with stones that had washed onto the tracks amid heavy rain.
Driver Brett McCullough, 45, conductor Donald Dinnie, 58, and passenger Christopher Stuchbury, 62, died in the crash, with six others aboard the train injured.

• The 06.54 from Stonehaven​

• ‘Our lives will never be the same again’: Family of Stonehaven train driver Brett speak for first time about devastating loss​

• ‘Dad truly was one of a kind’: Family of smiling conductor Donald Dinnie killed in Stonehaven rail crash say he will never be forgotten​

• Stonehaven rail crash victim Christopher Stuchbury was ‘a man much loved by all who knew him’​

• Community came together as one following Stonehaven rail tragedy​

‘Appalling’ trains are used for front line services​

Mr Dennis said: “The HST has no modern crashworthiness features – none at all.
“I think it’s pretty appalling that we’re still using those trains in front line service.”
Mr Dennis raised particular concern for drivers of the trains and the lack of protection offered, which he described as “unacceptable”.

“I’m amazed they have not been blacklisted as a result of Carmont.”

Speaking on his Rail Natter podcast, Mr Dennis said: “I adore it but it’s a museum piece.
“It shouldn’t be running in regular service any more.
“Drivers should not be operating these trains. It is as simple as that.
“The HST cab is essentially an upturned bath tub mounted facing outwards with a driver inside it.
“There is zero crash structure for the cab – absolutely zero crashworthiness whatsoever.
“Zero protection for the driver.
“All there is the base of the front of the HST with a fibreglass shell over the front.
“There is no crash structure at all.
“I’m amazed they have not been blacklisted as a result of Carmont.”
Referring to crashworthiness being investigated by the RAIB, Mr Dennis said: “I hope the RAIB do not pull their punches.”

Hope for change earlier than anticipated 2030 target​

He also compared the incident to the crash of a more modern Virgin Trains’ Pendolino at Grayrigg, near Kendal in Cumbria in 2007, in which only one person had died despite the train being heavier and travelling faster.
Mr Dennis told The Scotsman he hoped Transport Scotland would now plan for an earlier replacement of the HSTs than the current 2030 target date.
He said: “By raising the lack of crashworthiness in these vehicles, there’s a chance that might accelerate some of those discussions.
“My hope is it will be in the next few years.”
He added: “Railways remain the safest form of overland transit by a very long way, but that doesn’t mean the rail industry shouldn’t be striving for better safety.”
The Scotsman said ScotRail said it was unable to comment pending the RAIB investigation.
The drivers’ union Aslef and Transport Scotland declined to comment.

Pretty damning stuff, really.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Hope the forum is ready for the barrage of HST enthusiasts who will not hear a bad word said against them. I'm I'm certainly of the opinion that they are the wrong train for what they're being used for now, whether they are as unsafe as he makes out he's not for me to say as a mirror passenger and enthusiasts but what you certainly can't help wondering when we have a lot of much more modern stock on the system now which is most definitely built two more modern standards of crashworthiness if this was a particularly wise idea and once the pandemic has receded a bit what articles like this will do for consumer confidence in long-distance intercity Rail travel in Scotland and indeed elsewhere

 

[najaB]

Are they as crashworthy as more modern stock? No, you wouldn't expect that they would be. Are they death traps? No. The performance of the Mk3 carriage has been demonstrated several times over. Comparing the performance of different stock is fraught with problems as the circumstances of each accident are quite different.

The simple fact is that, of the options available to Scotrail at the time the decision was made to use HSTs, they represented the least-worst option on the table.

 

[Davester50]

The performance of the Mk3 carriage has been demonstrated several times over.

We also hear greatly about the problems of rust. Can we really say that the demonstrations, which I presume you mean to be the accidents of 20 to 30 years ago, proves the same today?
I don't think you can say that as a definite.

And I disagree with the oft repeated least worst option, but that's going OT again.

 

[43096]

Interesting piece on HST safety in the news today.

Rail engineer calls for ScotRail fleet involved in Stonehaven crash to be scrapped

A rail engineer has called for the type of train involved in the tragic Stonehaven derailment to be scrapped amid safety concerns. Gareth Dennis has said

www.google.com

Pretty damning stuff, really.

It is only "damning stuff" until you realise that Gareth Dennis is a commentator who's professional competency is apparently civil engineering, so not a traction and rolling stock engineer. Add on his political angle and his desire for self-promotion and you can see where a sensationalist headline comes from. I'd rather wait and see what the RAIB come up with - who do have professional rolling stock experts on the payroll - rather than listening to some media gobs**** spouting off.

The reality is, no they are not as safe as a 21st century design, but it doesn't make them unsafe.

 

[najaB]

We also hear greatly about the problems of rust. Can we really say that the demonstrations, which I presume you mean to be the accidents of 20 to 30 years ago, proves the same today?
I don't think you can say that as a definite.

I would have expected the worst of the rust issues to have been dealt with as part of the refurbishment process. If it wasn't then that is a fault of the contract specification, rather than the Mk3 design itself.

 

[Journeyman]

It is only "damning stuff" until you realise that Gareth Dennis is a commentator who's professional competency is apparently civil engineering, so not a traction and rolling stock engineer. Add on his political angle and his desire for self-promotion and you can see where a sensationalist headline comes from. I'd rather wait and see what the RAIB come up with - who do have professional rolling stock experts on the payroll - rather than listening to some media gobs**** spouting off.

The reality is, no they are not as safe as a 21st century design, but it doesn't make them unsafe.

However, as well as being less safe than newer trains, they are less safe than they were when they were new as well. The corrosion on most Mark 3s is now very bad, and far worse than what can easily be seen.

We need to decide if this is acceptable.

I would have expected the worst of the rust issues to have been dealt with as part of the refurbishment process.

Rust on most Mark 3s is really, really bad these days, and there's only so much you can do to fix the problem. Structural integrity on these is going to be affected by it.

 

[43096]

Rust on most Mark 3s is really, really bad these days, and there's only so much you can do to fix the problem. Structural integrity on these is going to be affected by it.

But one of the delays on the ScotRail programme has been because Wabtec were addressing that. As I said, better to wait for the RAIB full report.

 

[Journeyman]

But one of the delays on the ScotRail programme has been because Wabtec were addressing that. As I said, better to wait for the RAIB full report.

True. But it'll be interesting to see how/if ScotRail react to this, and if it affects public confidence.

 

[Killingworth]

It is only "damning stuff" until you realise that Gareth Dennis is a commentator who's professional competency is apparently civil engineering, so not a traction and rolling stock engineer. Add on his political angle and his desire for self-promotion and you can see where a sensationalist headline comes from. I'd rather wait and see what the RAIB come up with - who do have professional rolling stock experts on the payroll - rather than listening to some media gobs**** spouting off.

The reality is, no they are not as safe as a 21st century design, but it doesn't make them unsafe.

Given the number of miles these units have travelled over the last 40+ years their safety record is good. Each accident is different and the casualties can be put down to many factors before the integrity of power units and carriages becomes crucial.

Looking at Scotrail's HSTs it's obvious that they aren't brand new. I was surprised to hear that there were leaks through the ceiling almost immediately they were introduced. Walking above a unit at Waverley last week I could see it had multiple patches. Using GWR units 2 or 3 years ago I noted holes in bodywork around doors and at the end of carriages. However, has corrosion been a significant factor in any accidents so far?

One factor is that in front line service these trains operated with 7, 8 and 9 coaches. On the ECML they were on mostly good double or quadruple track with probably fewer gradients or bends than in Scotland. Two power cars with 4 coaches on often single track with more extreme weather is a new challenge. That's a lot of power pushing and pulling.

As for Carmont it's difficult to predict how any other train would have performed if travelling at that speed on a downhill curve and derailing immediately before crossing over a high bridge. I suspect the outcome wouldn't have been much better for a new train once the leading bogie derailed.

 

[SteelWeelApeal]

One factor is that in front line service these trains operated with 7, 8 and 9 coaches. On the ECML they were on mostly good double or quadruple track with probably fewer gradients or bends than in Scotland. Two power cars with 4 coaches on often single track with more extreme weather is a new challenge. That's a lot of power pushing and pulling.

Having fewer coaches doesn't increase the amount of power pushing and pulling. The power cars still have the same amount of power. In fact it would generally decrease as they do not need to pull/push for as long to accelerate, especially as they are not going above 100mph. Also I think all(?) the Scotrail HSTs came from GWR rather than the ECML, although some of them might have transferred from there to the GWML at some point.

 

[fgwrich]

Given the number of miles these units have travelled over the last 40+ years their safety record is good. Each accident is different and the casualties can be put down to many factors before the integrity of power units and carriages becomes crucial.

Looking at Scotrail's HSTs it's obvious that they aren't brand new. I was surprised to hear that there were leaks through the ceiling almost immediately they were introduced. Walking above a unit at Waverley last week I could see it had multiple patches. Using GWR units 2 or 3 years ago I noted holes in bodywork around doors and at the end of carriages. However, has corrosion been a significant factor in any accidents so far?

One factor is that in front line service these trains operated with 7, 8 and 9 coaches. On the ECML they were on mostly good double or quadruple track with probably fewer gradients or bends than in Scotland. Two power cars with 4 coaches on often single track with more extreme weather is a new challenge. That's a lot of power pushing and pulling.

As for Carmont it's difficult to predict how any other train would have performed if travelling at that speed on a downhill curve and derailing immediately before crossing over a high bridge. I suspect the outcome wouldn't have been much better for a new train once the leading bogie derailed.

Exactly this. I too don't particularly want to speculate until the RAIB report is published, but this last bit I fully agree with. Considering the way that other much newer items of rolling stock have derailed over the years, I too suspect that the outcome could have been simulary bad - eg the 800 at Leeds didn't fare too well when that derailed at 15 Mph sending the shockwaves down the rest of the unit and derailing.

 

[najaB]

As for Carmont it's difficult to predict how any other train would have performed if travelling at that speed on a downhill curve and derailing immediately before crossing over a high bridge. I suspect the outcome wouldn't have been much better for a new train once the leading bogie derailed.

I hope that part of the RAIB investigation will include modelling the forces involved so that they can be applied in simulations, including other designs.

 

[ilkestonian]

The irony of the hyperbole spouted by Gareth Dennis is that it might well lead to some travellers reading this and deciding to take their car instead of the train.

And I'm pretty sure an HST is safer than any car, however it's measured.

But I doubt he worries about facts like that getting in the way of his self promotion.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

If you read beyond Gareth's bit in the article, the section written by the driver is far more interesting.

The issue with the Driver's cab is hard to dispute. In the Cullen Inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove crash the HST Cab was described as being of "no significant structural strength" unable to resist loads above the underframe and "that it provided minimal protection for the driver in a collision." One of the recommendations of the report was to suggest that HST cabs ought to be strengthened.

As for the coaches - the older ones are 40+ years old. The accident reports describing them as strong and crashworthy are considering them by the standards of the time, 20 years ago when there still were a large number of Mk1 and Mk2 coaches in service. At the time in comparison they weren't bad. By today's standards it's an almost 50 year old design.

This accident had the potential to be Britain's worst for 30-50 years. It was blind luck that so few people died. It's absolutely right that this is being scrutinised.

 

[northernbelle]

Given the number of miles these units have travelled over the last 40+ years their safety record is good. Each accident is different and the casualties can be put down to many factors before the integrity of power units and carriages becomes crucial.

Looking at Scotrail's HSTs it's obvious that they aren't brand new. I was surprised to hear that there were leaks through the ceiling almost immediately they were introduced. Walking above a unit at Waverley last week I could see it had multiple patches. Using GWR units 2 or 3 years ago I noted holes in bodywork around doors and at the end of carriages. However, has corrosion been a significant factor in any accidents so far?

One factor is that in front line service these trains operated with 7, 8 and 9 coaches. On the ECML they were on mostly good double or quadruple track with probably fewer gradients or bends than in Scotland. Two power cars with 4 coaches on often single track with more extreme weather is a new challenge. That's a lot of power pushing and pulling.

As for Carmont it's difficult to predict how any other train would have performed if travelling at that speed on a downhill curve and derailing immediately before crossing over a high bridge. I suspect the outcome wouldn't have been much better for a new train once the leading bogie derailed.

Their safety record is indeed good but there's no doubt they just don't meet the crashworthiness standards we expect nowadays.

Aside from what is clearly the main theme - infrastructure performance in a changing climate - I hope the RAIB report also focusses in particular on the performance of the cab structure in a crash, along with the performance of couplings and anti-override measures that prevent vehicles from becoming tangled up in each other as we saw at Carmont. An understanding of how age affects vehicle crashworthiness would also be useful given the amount of older stock that's been reused over the years.

 

[Journeyman]

This accident had the potential to be Britain's worst for 30-50 years. It was blind luck that so few people died. It's absolutely right that this is being scrutinised.

Yeah. The fact is that almost everyone on board died. If it had been carrying a normal load, typical of non-COVID times, we could be talking of dozens of deaths.

 

[najaB]

Yeah. The fact is that almost everyone on board died.

Please, there's no need for hyperbole. 3 out of 9 isn't "almost everyone" by any objective interpretation of that phrase.

 

[Journeyman]

Their safety record is indeed good but there's no doubt they just don't meet the crashworthiness standards we expect nowadays.

Exactly - things move on. The Mark 3 was no doubt excellent when it was new, but the design is now over 50 years old. The Mark 1 was considered a huge improvement on earlier stock when new as well, but when the design was about 40 years old, we had the absolute carnage of Clapham. The destruction and loss of life was directly attributable to the design and age of the vehicles concerned, and it was quite rightly considered completely unacceptable for the modern railway.

Please, there's no need for hyperbole. 3 out of 9 isn't "almost everyone" by any objective interpretation of that phrase.

I thought there were 6 people on board, but even so, that's a third of the passengers and staff on board. Small in absolute terms, but still a tragedy, and if the train had been full, we'd potentially be looking at dozens of fatalities. We need to know if the age and condition of the stock led this to be worse than it may otherwise have been.

 

[najaB]

We need to know if the age and condition of the stock led this to be worse than it may otherwise have been.

Yes, we do. However some people seem to be jumping to the conclusion rather than waiting for the results of the investigation.

 

[Journeyman]

Yes, we do. However some people seem to be jumping to the conclusion rather than waiting for the results of the investigation.

I'm happy to wait, but I suspect it won't be a comfortable read.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Yes, we do. However some people seem to be jumping to the conclusion rather than waiting for the results of the investigation.

And some seem willing to defend their favourite trains or rule out factors that could well have played a large part in the accident.

 

[najaB]

And some seem willing to defend their favourite trains or rule out factors that could well have played a large part in the accident.

That may be true though, given that this thread of discussion was started by an article that basically says they are death traps, even a neutral viewpoint may come across to some as devotion.

 

[Northhighland]

If you read beyond Gareth's bit in the article, the section written by the driver is far more interesting.

The issue with the Driver's cab is hard to dispute. In the Cullen Inquiry into the Ladbroke Grove crash the HST Cab was described as being of "no significant structural strength" unable to resist loads above the underframe and "that it provided minimal protection for the driver in a collision." One of the recommendations of the report was to suggest that HST cabs ought to be strengthened.

As for the coaches - the older ones are 40+ years old. The accident reports describing them as strong and crashworthy are considering them by the standards of the time, 20 years ago when there still were a large number of Mk1 and Mk2 coaches in service. At the time in comparison they weren't bad. By today's standards it's an almost 50 year old design.

This accident had the potential to be Britain's worst for 30-50 years. It was blind luck that so few people died. It's absolutely right that this is being scrutinised.

Every accident has to be analysed and lessons learned. I as much as anyone love HST a great train to travel on for sure.

That doesn’t mean we retain at any cost. The cab is basically offering nothing more than weather protection. That isn’t good.
Need to wait for full findings but totally correct to question long term suitability.

 

[43096]

That doesn’t mean we retain at any cost. The cab is basically offering nothing more than weather protection.

There is so much nonsense and hyperbole about this.

To suggest they “offer nothing more than weather protection” is just utter drivel. They met the collision resistance standards at the time they were built and (as posted elsewhere) that they offer better protection than 1960s designs and at least match the likes of Class 150.

 

[Purple Orange]

I will default to the expert knowledge of those working in rail industry and assume that they are getting it right on questions of safety.

But as to whether they should be withdrawn? Yes. They have had their time. I can only answer this from a passenger perspective and I don’t expect a steam train and a train of carriages looking like the Hogwarts express to turn up, this HSTs will head the same way. All in all, I don’t really like being on a HST. Never have to be honest.

 

[Dai Corner]

The question to ask, I suppose, is how would a brand new DMU such as a Cl 195 have fared in comparison with the HST.

 

[swt_passenger]

It is only "damning stuff" until you realise that Gareth Dennis is a commentator who's professional competency is apparently civil engineering, so not a traction and rolling stock engineer. Add on his political angle and his desire for self-promotion and you can see where a sensationalist headline comes from. I'd rather wait and see what the RAIB come up with - who do have professional rolling stock experts on the payroll - rather than listening to some media gobs**** spouting off.

The reality is, no they are not as safe as a 21st century design, but it doesn't make them unsafe.

Anyone might think he was attempting to deflect attention from the likelihood of the Carmont accident being due to a civil engineering error…

 

[najaB]

Anyone might think he was attempting to deflect attention from the likelihood of the Carmont accident being due to a civil engineering error…

Perish the thought...

 

[snowball]

The damage done to the 800 in the 10mph speed difference crash at Neville Hill looks quite bad. Perhaps they should be withdrawn too.

Report 13/2020: Collision and derailment at Neville Hill

RAIB has today released its report into the collision and derailment at Neville Hill, 13 November 2019.

www.gov.uk